Would all nationalists vote for a new Ireland?

As discussion of a border poll has risen within the wider nationalist community, the debate about what would be needed to accommodate all identities in a new Ireland has barely begun.

Ian Clarke’s thoughtful piece on Slugger about whether pro union voices were wanted threw the lack of engagement between nationalists and unionists into sharp relief. In a largely nationalist milieu, it’s easy to see how a new Ireland would look much like the current republic, but what if the proposals from a future civic forum, echoing feedback from opinion polls, led Dublin to insist on the retention of a regional power-sharing assembly?

Devolution would be essential for health, education and policing immediately after a unity vote. With the need to align tax, currency, welfare and infrastructure, health and education are billion £ departments that would not be prioritized by the Dáil in the short term. Tax and welfare policy would impact the whole island, but decisions on the NHS or education would impact NI particularly. Ideally local people would help to steer the timing and degree of alignment.

You could appoint a quango / Tsar or a Dáil Committee or direct rule minister from Dublin, but many would prefer to have local political accountability. When people ask what happens to the NHS after a unity vote, the answer might be that day-to-day management and funding methods remain under local control, subject to financial oversight by the Dáil, while investment decisions, e.g. on centres of excellence, are taken on an all-island basis.

Similarly NI has a pressing need to step up human capital formation at the same time that it needs to rationalize waste and duplication in schools. That is not an all-island issue and needs dedicated focus. Other competencies might transition to a 32 county polity relatively quickly, albeit the PSNI might remain in situ for years, but ongoing policy needs in health and education could take decades to align.

To make a new regional assembly accountable, a civic forum might propose ditching d’Hondt in favour of voluntary cross-community coalition with an opposition bench, on the basis that there has to be collective cabinet responsibility for decisions. They would certainly seek ways to avoid frivolous vetoes.

Beyond the practical need for devolution in the short to medium term, a civic forum might also consider that a regional assembly is important to give political and cultural space to distinct identities. For Ulster Nationalists the Dáil might be as remote as Westminster or Brussels, not necessarily hostile but not their home, at least not yet.

Ultimately health and education could become closely aligned. A civic forum could propose that if people within the boundary of the regional assembly felt it had reached its sell-by date, they should have the right in a weighted majority vote to dissolve it. Alternatively if other counties in Ulster wanted to join the assembly, there could be constitutional latitude for them to have a plebiscite (thinking particularly of Donegal).

Bunreacht na hÉireann can cope with the existence of a regional assembly that might expand across the 9 county province. It could be an Éire Nua-style template e.g. for Munster if a groundswell of demand emerged, or alternatively it could dissolve itself (maybe with a 70%+ vote) if it was no longer needed.

Until serious discussions take place, we can only speculate on the shape of any plan for a new Ireland, but the further we move from assimilating Northern Ireland into a unitary state, the more uncomfortable this will become for some nationalists. Of all the hypothetical questions, one of the most interesting is whether enough nationalists would vote Yes in a border poll for a new Ireland if it meant a regional Assembly was retained?